On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 19:28:21, Glenn Morton wrote:
>SJ>Hayward's solution is like the Gap Theory or the Revealed Days
>theory. It purchases peace between the Bible and science by removing
>Genesis 1 from actual historical reality. Everything in Genesis 1
>becomes something forseen in eternity and nothing in Genesis 1
>actually happens *at the time* in time. Yet Genesis 1 strongly
>indicates that what is uttered by God in eternity actually happens in
>time *at the time*. The repeated pattern of command, fulfillment and
>inspection, eg. "And God said, `Let there be light,' and there was
>light. God saw that the light was good..." (Gn 1:3-4), argues for
>God actually acting in time *within Genesis 1*.
>
>Indeed, if "Genesis 2 is...the last, and greatest, of God's
>descriptions of the way one of his fiats was brought to pass", where
>is the descriptions of the way the other fiats were brought to pass?
GM>Is there some sort of cosmic law that says that all the days must
>be outlined in detail? I know of none.
Firstly, please note that Glenn just ignores my first point! This is the
same person who is often criticising others for their "overwhelming
silence"! :-)
Secondly, I said nothing about the other days being "outlined in
detail". The point is that according to Hayward's theory, they are
not described *at all*.
SJ>Having said the above, I do not want to get sidetracked into a
>full-scale debate of Hayward's or Glenn's Days of Divine Fiat
>theory, since I regard that as a diversion from Glenn's 5.5 mya Homo
>habilis Adam theory...Now perhaps Glenn could explain how
>his Days of Divine Fiats (or Proclamations) view could be disproved? :-)
GM>One could disprove them by showing a one to one temporal
>correspondence between the events of Genesis 1 and those of the
>fossil record. This means providing a detailed exposition of how
>the events described in Genesis 1 match the order of the fossils in
>the geologic record. Proving that plants were here on earth before
>the sun would disprove them also. Doing that would most certainly
>seriously destroy the need for the days of Proclamation view.
How could this be done, when by Glenn's own admission "all the days"
are not "oulined in detail"?
And in any event, Hayward's theory holds that the days of Genesis 1
overlapped:
"...it explains why the order of events in Genesis 1 is similar to,
but not identical with, the order in which fossils appear in the
geological record. The broad similarity is because the creative
processes were presumably started in much the same order as the daily
fiats. The discrepancies are because those creative processes took
varying lengths of time to complete, so that there would be a great
deal of overlapping in the periods of active creation." (Hayward A.,
"Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and
the Bible", 1995, Bethany House Publishers: Minneapolis, pp176-177)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------